Changes

From the beginning, attempts have been made to both negate what God in the [[Bible]] has clearly commanded not to be done, and misconstrue its words in order to promote prohibited actions and attitudes, sometimes by quite sophisticated forms of sophistry. One of the most recent manifestations of such has been in the area of [[homosexuality and the Bible]]. The historical/traditional position evidences that the Bible uniquely establishes and consistently confirms that only the women was made for man (1Cor. 11:9), as his uniquely compatible and complementary paracletal "helpmeet," which no other physical creation could fulfill, with purposefully created complementary physical and positional distinctions (Gn. 2:18-24; 1Cor. 11:1-12). And which sexual union God explicitly sanctioned by establishing marriage for,(Gn. 2:24; Mt. 19:4-6; Eph. 6:31), which is never established for same gender unions. Rather, such are excluded by design and decrees, and wherever same gender unions are explicitly dealt with, they are only condemned (Lv. 18:22; 23:13; Rm. 1:26,27). In response, proponents of [[homosexuality]], and more specifically, homosex (also referred to as "homoeroticism" or homogenitalism relations<ref>homosexual erotic activity; same gender sexual relations</ref>) and [[same-sex marriage]] have strove to cast doubt and to outright deny what God has  stated on the matter, and then to present assertions to the contrary. (cf. Gn. 3:1-5).  

From the beginning, attempts have been made to both negate what God in the [[Bible]] has clearly commanded not to be done, and misconstrue its words in order to promote prohibited actions and attitudes, sometimes by quite sophisticated forms of sophistry. One of the most recent manifestations of such has been in the area of [[homosexuality and the Bible]]. The historical/traditional position evidences that the Bible uniquely establishes and consistently confirms that only the women was made for man (1Cor. 11:9), as his uniquely compatible and complementary paracletal "helpmeet," which no other physical creation could fulfill, with purposefully created complementary physical and positional distinctions (Gn. 2:18-24; 1Cor. 11:1-12). And which sexual union God explicitly sanctioned by establishing marriage for,(Gn. 2:24; Mt. 19:4-6; Eph. 6:31), which is never established for same gender unions. Rather, such are excluded by design and by decrees, with gender unions being only condemned in places where they are explicitly dealt with. (Lv. 18:22; 23:13; Rm. 1:26,27). In response, proponents of [[homosexuality]], and more specifically, homosex (also referred to as "homoeroticism" or homogenitalism<ref>homosexual erotic activity; same gender sexual relations</ref>) and [[same-sex marriage]] have strove to cast doubt and to outright deny what God has  stated on the matter, and then to present assertions to the contrary. (cf. Gn. 3:1-5).  

== Foundational Issues ==

== Foundational Issues ==

The pro homosexual polemic controverts this, asserting that what Jesus was referencing to (“this saying”) was the '''kind''' of marriage, that being between male and female, to negate it's exclusivity as a type, when instead Jesus was referring to  the '''disciple's conclusion''' that being single was to be preferred, which had become the issue, in the light of the high standard of marriage commitment, that being  it's '''permanence'''. The homosexual polemic next supposes that the avocation of marriage due to intense longing in 1Cor. 7:9 must sanction same gender marriage, but fully consistent with all other teaching on marriage, it is only male and female who are to be joined in marriage here, and who are legally free to marry, and not to anyone who so desires. The sanction of marriage here does not abrogate the Biblical restrictions on marrying near kin, or another man's wife, or an animal, no matter how much one may long to do so, or between same genders. 1Cor. 7 also further establishes that “eunuchs” are those who are single and celibate. It should be added here that, as many Christians who have chosen that state can testify, this does not necessarily infer that this condition does not pertain to persons who could be married if they so choose, and have as much or more drive than others in regards to union, but that, like the passionate Paul, these can happily keep their body under subjection (1Cor. 9:27) as they seek and serve the LORD, who Himself was tempted in all points as we are, yet without sin (Heb. 4:15).

The pro homosexual polemic controverts this, asserting that what Jesus was referencing to (“this saying”) was the '''kind''' of marriage, that being between male and female, to negate it's exclusivity as a type, when instead Jesus was referring to  the '''disciple's conclusion''' that being single was to be preferred, which had become the issue, in the light of the high standard of marriage commitment, that being  it's '''permanence'''. The homosexual polemic next supposes that the avocation of marriage due to intense longing in 1Cor. 7:9 must sanction same gender marriage, but fully consistent with all other teaching on marriage, it is only male and female who are to be joined in marriage here, and who are legally free to marry, and not to anyone who so desires. The sanction of marriage here does not abrogate the Biblical restrictions on marrying near kin, or another man's wife, or an animal, no matter how much one may long to do so, or between same genders. 1Cor. 7 also further establishes that “eunuchs” are those who are single and celibate. It should be added here that, as many Christians who have chosen that state can testify, this does not necessarily infer that this condition does not pertain to persons who could be married if they so choose, and have as much or more drive than others in regards to union, but that, like the passionate Paul, these can happily keep their body under subjection (1Cor. 9:27) as they seek and serve the LORD, who Himself was tempted in all points as we are, yet without sin (Heb. 4:15).

The homosexual apologist knows that there no avocation of any same gender marriage, and thus employs another specious polemical tactic, which asserts that since that Jesus did not say that eunuchs must be celibate, that door is still open. Yet such an argument has about as much validity as saying that God never said you cannot marry a gorilla. Or as another example of the law of purpose, in Gn. 9:3 God states man's need for food (sustenance, not medicine) was to be fulfilled by plants and animals, which eliminates cement as sustenance, no matter how much one might hypothetically crave it, though it is not expressly forbidden. But as this also does not explicitly forbid “Christian cannibalism” as a way of life (as long as the subjects consented, the blood was drained, and were well cooked),<ref>even this may be seen as allowable by some in life or death circumstances, as unlike homosexuality, there is no explicit injunction against it, but such could never be allowed as any manner of life as it is contrary in principal.</ref> then to be consistent, pro homosexual polemicists could argue for this as a lifestyle. The facts are that the Bible only establishes marriage as between opposite genders, and wherever it explicitly deals with same gender sex then it condemns it. And when the New Testament deals with those whom the disciples saying (Mt. 19:10) applies, then it evidences it only as celibacy. (1Cor. 7:2,7,32-37) The precludes any need for an explicit statement such as “eunuchs are not to be married.”  Rather, it is such an explicit statement sanctioning  same sex marriage is what is  needed, but such cannot be seen anywhere, or derived by forcing sex into passages it does not belong.   

The homosexual apologist knows that there no avocation of any same gender marriage, and thus employs another specious polemical tactic, which asserts that since that Jesus did not say that eunuchs must be celibate, that door is still open. Yet such an argument has about as much validity as saying that God never said you cannot marry a gorilla. Or, in another example of the law of purpose, in Gn. 9:3 God states man's need for food (sustenance, not medicine) was to be fulfilled by plants and animals, which eliminates cement as sustenance, no matter how much one might hypothetically crave it, though it is not expressly forbidden. But as this also does not explicitly forbid “Christian cannibalism” as a way of life (as long as the subjects consented, the blood was drained, and were well cooked),<ref>even this may be seen as allowable by some in life or death circumstances, as unlike homosexuality, there is no explicit injunction against it, but such could never be allowed as any manner of life as it is contrary in principal.</ref> then to be consistent, pro homosexual polemicists could argue for this as a lifestyle. The facts are that the Bible only establishes marriage as between opposite genders, and wherever it explicitly deals with same gender sex then it condemns it. And when the New Testament deals with those whom the disciples saying (Mt. 19:10) applies, then it evidences it only as celibacy. (1Cor. 7:2,7,32-37) The precludes any need for an explicit statement such as “eunuchs are not to be married.”  Rather, it is such an explicit statement sanctioning  same sex marriage is what is  needed, but such cannot be seen anywhere, or derived by forcing sex into passages it does not belong.   

Another tactic used in seeking to negate the exclusivity of opposite gender marriage, is to assert that  different types of marriage are allowed in Scripture, which is true, such as polygamy and concubines (a type of an economical wife, but a wife nonetheless). However, these were types of the original union, and they actually stand as an argument against same gender marriage, as in all manifest cases of sanctioned marriage, these are all between male and female counterparts, even though Solomon had 700 of the latter. In Mt. 19:3-8, Jesus revealed  that in the Old Testament God allowed Moses a degree of broadness as regards to the number of wives and the permanence of it, in condescension to their carnality, yet in bringing it back to it's original standard Jesus distinctly stated it was male and female which God joined together, and it is that union which alone is explicitly and abundantly affirmed throughout Scripture.   

Another tactic used in seeking to negate the exclusivity of opposite gender marriage, is to assert that  different types of marriage are allowed in Scripture, which is true, such as polygamy and concubines (a type of an economical wife, but a wife nonetheless). However, these were types of the original union, and they actually stand as an argument against same gender marriage, as in all manifest cases of sanctioned marriage, these are all between male and female counterparts, even though Solomon had 700 of the latter. In Mt. 19:3-8, Jesus revealed  that in the Old Testament God allowed Moses a degree of broadness as regards to the number of wives and the permanence of it, in condescension to their carnality, yet in bringing it back to it's original standard Jesus distinctly stated it was male and female which God joined together, and it is that union which alone is explicitly and abundantly affirmed throughout Scripture.   

The issue here is not the forced manner of sexual relations that is evidenced, but the homosexuality nature of it, which defines the practice from whence the term "sodomy" was derived. However, as this  story would evidence that the most notable sin of Sodom had to with homoerotic relations, and which “filthy” lifestyle resulted in Sodom becoming the foremost example of the judgment of God, and upon “those that after should live ungodly” (Pet. 2:6), therefore homosexual apologists most typically seek to disallow that the "very grievous" sin of Sodom here had anything to do with homoeroticism. Instead, they seek to attribute it to simply "inhospitality,” albeit of a violent nature.<ref>D S. Bailey, Homosexuality and the Western Tradition, p. 8; John J. McNeil, the Church and the Homosexual, p. 50; Daniel Helminiak</ref> Scroggs, while seeking to justify homosexuality, states he finds it “difficult to deny the sexual intent of the Sodomites.” And thus believes “the traditional interpretation  to be correct.”<ref>The New Testament and Homosexuality, by Robin Scroggs; p. 73</ref> Holding states, I know of no evidence for the claim that Lot violated a custom by not getting permission to have a guest.<ref>"On Homosexuality and Rape in Genesis", James Patrick Holding http://tektonics.org/gk/genhom.html</ref> While Sodom certainly manifested “inhospitality,” it is the specific expression of it which is the issue.

The issue here is not the forced manner of sexual relations that is evidenced, but the homosexuality nature of it, which defines the practice from whence the term "sodomy" was derived. However, as this  story would evidence that the most notable sin of Sodom had to with homoerotic relations, and which “filthy” lifestyle resulted in Sodom becoming the foremost example of the judgment of God, and upon “those that after should live ungodly” (Pet. 2:6), therefore homosexual apologists most typically seek to disallow that the "very grievous" sin of Sodom here had anything to do with homoeroticism. Instead, they seek to attribute it to simply "inhospitality,” albeit of a violent nature.<ref>D S. Bailey, Homosexuality and the Western Tradition, p. 8; John J. McNeil, the Church and the Homosexual, p. 50; Daniel Helminiak</ref> Scroggs, while seeking to justify homosexuality, states he finds it “difficult to deny the sexual intent of the Sodomites.” And thus believes “the traditional interpretation  to be correct.”<ref>The New Testament and Homosexuality, by Robin Scroggs; p. 73</ref> Holding states, I know of no evidence for the claim that Lot violated a custom by not getting permission to have a guest.<ref>"On Homosexuality and Rape in Genesis", James Patrick Holding http://tektonics.org/gk/genhom.html</ref> While Sodom certainly manifested “inhospitality,” it is the specific expression of it which is the issue.

Two words focused upon in the attempt to remove homosexual abuse from Gn. 19 are "men" as in "the men of Sodom", and "know" as in "know them", which the men demanded Lot allow them to do regarding his guests. The first assertion is that the word for men used in Genesis 19:4, "'ĕnôsh" (Strong, #582), is not gender specific, but simply indicates mortals or people, and instead the word "esh" (or "'îysh", Strong, #376) would have been used in Gn. 19:4 if it specifically meant men.<ref>http://www.knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/Sodom_and_Gomorrah</ref> Actually, Gn. 19:4 does state both "the men of Sodom" and "all the people", but the use of enosh need not exclude the men from being the more particular subject, as 'ĕnôsh is often used elsewhere where the subjects are specifically male (Gn. 6:4; 17:27; 26:7; 34:7; 43:15-18,24,33; Ex. 2:13; Josh. 2:2-5, etc.), and is sometimes used in distinction to women (Ex. 35:22; Dt. 31:12; Jdg. 9:51; Neh. 8:3), as well as for all the references to the angels in this chapter (Gn. 18:2,16,22; Gn. 19:5,8,10-12,16). The word 'ĕnôsh is often used to denote man in plurality, including both men and women (Josh. 8:25) and when men only are indicated (Jdg. 8:17; 2Sam 11:17; 2 Ki. 10:6;  6:30; 8:17), and in such places as Josh. 8:14 for all the people when men in particular are preeminent (in such Biblical times, it was the men who did the actually fighting and were usually targeted for killing).  As for “Iyish” [H376]  this word is most often for singular males, but it is not necessarily always gender specific (Ex. 11:7; 16:18; Jer. 51:43; Hos. 11:9, etc.), and can also denote what would seem to be a mixed multitude (Num. 9:10; Josh. 10:21). Another word is "'âdâm" (H120), which is used for mankind in general (Gn. 6:1; 2Ch. 6:18,30; Job 7:20), but it also is not gender specific (Ex. 4:11; 8:17,18; 9:9,10,19,22; 30:32; 33:20) The Hebrew word which is strictly gender specific is "zâkâr" (H2145), and is used in such cases as Gn. 7:10 and Lv. 18:22; 20:13 in specific use, but it is not the only word used to denote a crowd of men. Also, the word used for people ("‛am," H5971) in Gn. 19:4, as in "all the people from every quarter", can be used when it would apply to males in particular, as in Gn. 26:10.   

Two words focused upon in the attempt to remove homosexual abuse from Gn. 19 are "men" as in "the men of Sodom", and "know" as in "know them", which the men demanded Lot allow them to do regarding his guests. The first assertion is that the word for men used in Genesis 19:4, "'ĕnôsh" (Strong, #582), is not gender specific, but simply indicates mortals or people, and instead the word "'îysh" (or "eesh") (Strong, #376), would have been used in Gn. 19:4 if it specifically meant men.<ref>http://www.knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/Sodom_and_Gomorrah</ref> Actually, Gn. 19:4 does state both "the men of Sodom" and "all the people", but the use of enosh need not exclude the men from being the more particular subject, as 'ĕnôsh is often used elsewhere where the subjects are specifically male (Gn. 6:4; 17:27; 26:7; 34:7; 43:15-18,24,33; Ex. 2:13; Josh. 2:2-5, etc.), and is sometimes used in distinction to women (Ex. 35:22; Dt. 31:12; Jdg. 9:51; Neh. 8:3), as well as for all the references to the angels in this chapter (Gn. 18:2,16,22; Gn. 19:5,8,10-12,16). The word 'ĕnôsh is often used to denote man in plurality, including both men and women (Josh. 8:25) and when men only are indicated (Jdg. 8:17; 2Sam 11:17; 2 Ki. 10:6;  6:30; 8:17), and in such places as Josh. 8:14 for all the people when men in particular are preeminent (in such Biblical times, it was the men who did the actually fighting and were usually targeted for killing).  As for “Iyish” [H376]  this word is most often for singular males, but it is not necessarily always gender specific (Ex. 11:7; 16:18; Jer. 51:43; Hos. 11:9, etc.), and can also denote what would seem to be a mixed multitude (Num. 9:10; Josh. 10:21). Another word is "'âdâm" (H120), which is used for mankind in general (Gn. 6:1; 2Ch. 6:18,30; Job 7:20), but it also is not gender specific (Ex. 4:11; 8:17,18; 9:9,10,19,22; 30:32; 33:20) The Hebrew word which is strictly gender specific is "zâkâr" (H2145), and is used in such cases as Gn. 7:10 and Lv. 18:22; 20:13 in specific use, but it is not the only word used to denote a crowd of men. Also, the word used for people ("‛am," H5971) in Gn. 19:4, as in "all the people from every quarter", can be used when it would apply to males in particular, as in Gn. 26:10.   

Thus, while 'ĕnôsh may often denote a multitude of people irrespective of gender, yet as it is used in cases where men are clearly the subject, it's use in Gn. 19:4 to denote men as the particular subject cannot be disallowed. In the continuing context, Lot goes outside and entreats his "brethren" (a word ("'âch," H251) that most often denotes males), saying, "I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly", and proceeds to offer them his two daughters "which have not known man" (v. 8). This they refuse, and they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door." But the men ('ĕnôsh) angels rescue him (vs. 4-11). Lot's address and the nature of his appeal and their violent reaction best indicates men in particular.  

Thus, while 'ĕnôsh may often denote a multitude of people irrespective of gender, yet as it is used in cases where men are clearly the subject, it's use in Gn. 19:4 to denote men as the particular subject cannot be disallowed. In the continuing context, Lot goes outside and entreats his "brethren" (a word ("'âch," H251) that most often denotes males), saying, "I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly", and proceeds to offer them his two daughters "which have not known man" (v. 8). This they refuse, and they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door." But the men ('ĕnôsh) angels rescue him (vs. 4-11). Lot's address and the nature of his appeal and their violent reaction best indicates men in particular.  

The next word in contention, "yâda‛" (H3045) is more critical as to determining the particular nature of the inhospitality of Sodom. To those familiar with the Biblical use of yada as a primary verb to sexually know a human, the meaning is clear enough, but homosexual apologists contend that since yada is used over 940 times to denote non-sexual knowing, then it's use here only denotes interrogation, albeit of a violent nature. However, while forced sex is mentioned elsewhere (2 Sam. 13:1-14), violent interrogation itself is not evident in the Scriptures, and "yâda‛" is never used to denote gaining information by such means, unless  Jdg. 19:25 (the parallel account to Gn. 19) is made to convey such, but interrogation is hardly conveyed by “they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning”. (Jdg. 19:25). Even the use of  "yâda” to denote gaining non-sexual personal knowledge by close contact with another person is exceedingly rare (Gn. 45:1), but  "yada" (as in "know/knew/known") is clearly used 16 times in the Bible, in addition to Gn. 19, to denote for sexual relations: Gn. 4:1,17,25; 24:16; 38:26; Num. 31:17,18,35; Jdg. 11:39; 19:25; 21:11,12; 1Sam. 1:19; 1Ki. 1:4; cf. Mt. 1:25; Lk. 1:34. Another likely instance, and of a non-consensual homosexual act, is in Gn. 9:20-27 (v. 24)<ref>Holding, Homosexuality and Rape in Genesis, http://tektonics.org/gk/genhom.html</ref>  

The next word in contention, "yâda‛" (H3045) is more critical as to determining the particular nature of the inhospitality of Sodom. To those familiar with the Biblical use of yada as a primary verb to sexually know a human, the meaning is clear enough, but homosexual apologists contend that since yada is used over 940 times to denote non-sexual knowing, then it's use here only denotes interrogation, albeit of a violent nature. However, while forced sex is mentioned elsewhere (2 Sam. 13:1-14), violent interrogation itself is not evident in the Scriptures, and "yâda‛" is never used to denote gaining information by such means, unless  Jdg. 19:25 (the parallel account to Gn. 19) is made to convey such, but interrogation is hardly conveyed by “they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning”. (Jdg. 19:25). Even the use of  "yâda” to denote gaining non-sexual personal knowledge by close contact with another person is exceedingly rare (Gn. 45:1), but  "yada" is clearly used 14 times in the Old Testament, in addition to Gn. 19:4, and an equivalent word 2 times in the New, to denote knowing sexually: Gn. 4:1,17,25; 24:16; 38:26 (premarital); Num. 31:17,18,35; Jdg. 11:39; 19:25; 21:11,12; 1Sam. 1:19; 1Ki. 1:4; cf. Mt. 1:25; Lk. 1:34. Another likely instance, and of a non-consensual homosexual act, is in Gn. 9:20-27 (v. 24)<ref>Holding, Homosexuality and Rape in Genesis, http://tektonics.org/gk/genhom.html</ref>  

The Bible, as in many languages and cultures, makes abundant use of euphemisms for sex, such as "know" or "lie with" or "uncover the nakedness of" or "go in into."  Ancient languages which also used this allegorical use of “know” included Egyptian, Akkadian, and Ugaritic,<ref>(Botterweck, 1986, 5:455-456,460),</ref> as well as Syriac, Arabic, Ethiopic, and Greek <ref>(Gesenius, 1979, p. 334).</ref>  Hebrew scholars defining 'know' as used in Genesis 19:5, used terminology like 'sexual perversion'<ref>(Harris, et al., 1980, p. 366),</ref> 'homosexual intercourse'<ref>(Botterweck, 5:464),</ref> and 'crimes against nature',<ref>(Gesenius, p. 334).</ref><ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/480</ref>  

The Bible, as in many languages and cultures, makes abundant use of euphemisms for sex, such as "know" or "lie with" or "uncover the nakedness of" or "go in into."  Ancient languages which also used this allegorical use of “know” included Egyptian, Akkadian, and Ugaritic,<ref>(Botterweck, 1986, 5:455-456,460),</ref> as well as Syriac, Arabic, Ethiopic, and Greek <ref>(Gesenius, 1979, p. 334).</ref>  Hebrew scholars defining 'know' as used in Genesis 19:5, used terminology like 'sexual perversion'<ref>(Harris, et al., 1980, p. 366),</ref> 'homosexual intercourse'<ref>(Botterweck, 5:464),</ref> and 'crimes against nature',<ref>(Gesenius, p. 334).</ref><ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/480</ref>  

As one commentator states, “In narrative literature of this sort it would be very unlikely to use one verb with two different meanings so close together unless the author made the difference quite obvious. In both verses 5 and 8 "yada" should be translated "to have sexual intercourse with." The context does not lend itself to any other credible interpretation.”  <ref>http://www.biblebb.com/files/HOMOSEX.HTM</ref>

As one commentator states, “In narrative literature of this sort it would be very unlikely to use one verb with two different meanings so close together unless the author made the difference quite obvious. In both verses 5 and 8 "yada" should be translated "to have sexual intercourse with." The context does not lend itself to any other credible interpretation.”  <ref>http://www.biblebb.com/files/HOMOSEX.HTM</ref>

Another misleading argument that the less ambiguous word shakhabh (H7901) would have been used instead of the word "yâda  if sexual knowing was meant, <ref>G. A. Barton</ref> yet  shakhabh even more often means sleep or rest,  while (again) "yâda is used instead of shakhabh to gain sexual knowledge 12 times in the Bible, besides the disputed verses.

Another misleading argument that the less ambiguous word shakhabh (H7901) would have been used instead of the word "yâda  if sexual knowing was meant, <ref>G. A. Barton</ref> yet  shakhabh even more often means sleep or rest,  while (again) "yâda is used instead of shakhabh to gain sexual knowledge 13 times in the Old Testament Bible, besides the disputed verses in Gn. 19.

 

It is noteworthy that  prohomosex polemicists who disallow a sexual meaning here are often not reluctant to read homosex or a homosexual relationship into stories such as Ruth and Naomi, David and Jonathan, Daniel and Ashpenaz, the centurion and his servant, Jesus and John, and (some) Elijah and the son of the widow of Zarephath, and even resort to asserting that Paul was a repressed homosexual, while even more extreme examples can be seen.

In addition, that Lot interpreted the Sodomites demand to “know” his male guests as to know sexually is indicated by his offering to bring his two virgin daughters (he had married ones also, not with him) out to them, "which have not known [yada] man", which is best understood as being substitute bodies for the Sodomites to sexually know right there (rather than the angels), rather than being sacrificed in pagan idolatry, as homosexual apologists usually assert. The latter position is untenable in the light of the response of the men to the same offer in the parallel story in Judges 19, for which see below.  

As yâda is often used as a verb to refer to sex narratives, but in forbidding illicit sex, another attempt is made to disallow homosex in Gn. 19 based upon the absence of yâda when the Bible mentions homosexual acts (in Lv. 18:22; 20:13; 23:17)<ref>Julie M. Smith, Sometimes a Cigar is Just a Cigar</ref> However, this argument fails, as it would also disallow yâda from denoting premarital sex, (Gn. 38:26) or forced sex, (Jdg. 19:25) which, like Gn. 19, is described in narratives by using the euphemism yâda, but when proscribed as a sin, it uses the euphemism “lie/lay” (Dt. 22:25-29). None of the laws against illicit sex use yâda.  

An argument is also made (and dealt with more later) in response to the Book of Jude's confirmation that Sodom's most notable sin was fornication, that the Sodomite's sin was knowingly seeking sex with angels. However, not only was Sodom evidently practicing their damnable sin prior to the arrival of Lot's angelic guests (Gn. 18:20-22), but it is most unlikely that they, nor even Lot, knew then what manner of men his guests were. It should also be noted that at the time of Lot's immigration to that city, the men of Sodom were already said to be “wicked and sinners before the LORD exceedingly” (Gn. 13:13), and likely had gotten worse since Lot first arrived. Heb. 13:2 most likely refers to Abraham and or Lot's angels incognito. We see beginning in 19:10 that the men then refused Lot's offer of virgins, and threatened to do worse to Lot then with his guests, and pressed sore against him, almost breaking the door, until the angels smote them with blindness and pull Lot inside and shut the door. This would be impossible for ordinary men, and the Sodomites  would then have realized that the men whom they sought were no ordinary men.  

An argument is also made in response to the Book of Jude's confirmation that Sodom's most notable sin was fornication, that the Sodomite's sin was knowingly seeking sex with angels. However, not only was Sodom evidently practicing their damnable sin prior to the arrival of Lot's angelic guests (Gn. 18:20-22), but it is most unlikely that they, nor even Lot, knew then what manner of men his guests were. It should also be noted that at the time of Lot's immigration to that city, the men of Sodom were already said to be “wicked and sinners before the LORD exceedingly” (Gn. 13:13), and likely had gotten worse since Lot first arrived. Heb. 13:2 most likely refers to Abraham and or Lot's angels incognito. We see beginning in 19:10 that the men then refused Lot's offer of virgins, and threatened to do worse to Lot then with his guests, and pressed sore against him, almost breaking the door, until the angels smote them with blindness and pull Lot inside and shut the door. This would be impossible for ordinary men, and the Sodomites  would then have realized that the men whom they sought were no ordinary men.  

The sexual connotation in this story is further confirmed in the parallel story of the Levite and his concubine in Judge 19, whom men of Belial “knew” and abused all the night.

The sexual connotation in this story is further confirmed in the parallel story of the Levite and his concubine in Judge 19, whom men of Belial “knew” and abused all the night.

Grammatically, the Hebrew word used for humble (“‛ânâh” , H6031), as in “humble ye them” (19:24), usually means afflict, but it is also often used for humbling someone sexually (Gn. 34:2; Ex. 22:10,11; Dt. 21:14; 22:21,24;29;. 2Sam.13:12,14,32), while “folly” and "vile", as in “do not this folly”, and “do not so vile a thing” (Jdg. 19:23,24), are from the same Hebrew word (“nebâlâh,” H5039), which is mostly used in sexual sense when referring to a specific sin of action (Gn. 34:7; Dt. 22:21;. 2Sam.13:12; Jer. 29:23). Likewise, “lewdness” (“zimmâh/zammâh,” H2154), as in “they have committed lewdness and folly in Israel” (20:6), is used more in a sexual sense than for any other type of sin (Lv. 18:17; 19:29; 20:14; Jer. 3:27; Ezek. 16:43,58; 22:11; 23:21,27,29,3544,,48). “Abused” (“‛âlal,” H5953) as in “they knew her and abused her all the night” (v. 25) offers no other precise meaning other here than what the context indicates.  

Grammatically, the Hebrew word used for humble (“‛ânâh” , H6031), as in “humble ye them” (19:24), usually means afflict, but it is also often used for humbling someone sexually (Gn. 34:2; Ex. 22:10,11; Dt. 21:14; 22:21,24;29;. 2Sam.13:12,14,32), while “folly” and "vile", as in “do not this folly”, and “do not so vile a thing” (Jdg. 19:23,24), are from the same Hebrew word (“nebâlâh,” H5039), which is mostly used in sexual sense when referring to a specific sin of action (Gn. 34:7; Dt. 22:21;. 2Sam.13:12; Jer. 29:23). Likewise, “lewdness” (“zimmâh/zammâh,” H2154), as in “they have committed lewdness and folly in Israel” (20:6), is used more in a sexual sense than for any other type of sin (Lv. 18:17; 19:29; 20:14; Jer. 3:27; Ezek. 16:43,58; 22:11; 23:21,27,29,3544,,48). “Abused” (“‛âlal,” H5953) as in “they knew her and abused her all the night” (v. 25) offers no other precise meaning other here than what the context indicates.  

Taken together, it is most evident that the abuse the women suffered was violently sexual, and which best defines the type of “knowing that “certain sons of Belial” (a term used for fornicators in 1Sam. 2:12, cf. v.22) sought to have, and which would result in death. And which serves to define the manner of “knowing” which was sought in Gn. 19. The only real difference between this and Gn. 19 is that these men finally took the substitute offer of the women (which was also sin). And though both Gn. 19 and Jdg. 19 specifically show homosexual rape itself to be sin, it was not simply the manner in which they sought relations (such as the women suffered) that was called vile, but the homosexual aspect of it. The pro homosexual author Scroggs concurs that in Jdg. 19 "the verb [yada] almost surely refers to a sexual desire for homosexual rape", and that the traditional interpretation of Gn. 19 is correct.<ref>The New Testament and Homosexuality, by Robin Scroggs, pp. 73-75</ref>   

Taken together, it is most evident that the abuse the women suffered was violently sexual, and which best defines the type of “knowing that “certain sons of Belial” (a term used for fornicators in 1Sam. 2:12, cf. v.22) sought to have, and which would result in death. And which serves to define the manner of “knowing” which was sought in Gn. 19. The only real difference between this and Gn. 19 is that these men finally took the substitute offer of the women (which was also sin). And though both Gn. 19 and Jdg. 19 specifically show homosexual rape itself to be sin, it was not simply the manner in which they sought relations (such as the women suffered) that was called vile, but the homosexual aspect of it. Even prohomosex author Robin Scroggs also concurs that in Jdg. 19 "the verb [yada] almost surely refers to a sexual desire for homosexual rape", and that the traditional interpretation of Gn. 19 is correct.<ref>The New Testament and Homosexuality, by Robin Scroggs, pp. 73-75</ref>   

Finally, that the sin of Sodom was attempted homosexual rape hardly needs any of the above for confirmation, as Jude 7 (see below) clearly tells us that not only was Sodom and company given to fornication, but that this included a perverse kind.

Finally, that the sin of Sodom was attempted homosexual rape hardly needs any of the above for confirmation, as Jude 7 (see below) clearly tells us that not only was Sodom and company given to fornication, but that this included a perverse kind.

Jude is a book dealing with the manifestations and consequences of spiritual and moral declension, in contrast to the purity and power of Godly love. Verse 7  follows examples of men and angels went  backwards in rebellion against God, and suffered certain judgment, and which then declares, "Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire." (KJV)   

Jude is a book dealing with the manifestations and consequences of spiritual and moral declension, in contrast to the purity and power of Godly love. Verse 7  follows examples of men and angels went  backwards in rebellion against God, and suffered certain judgment, and which then declares, "Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire." (KJV)   

Here, it is explicitly stated that not only Sodom but Gomorrha also the cities about them in like manner “gave themselves over to fornication.” with a specific form of it being the culmination of such surrender to sensuality. The Greek (which the New Testament was written in) word from which the emphasized phrase comes from, is “ekporneuō” (G1608), and is only Biblically used here, but it is a combination of  “ek,”  denoting motion, as in “giving themselves,” and  “porneuō,” meaning fornication. Ekporneuō also occurs in the [[Septuagint]] to denote whoredom Genesis 38:24 and Exodus 34:15. Realizing this, most homosexual apologists again seek to deny homoeroticism from being the specific primarily sin of Sodom by proposing or contending that as the word for “strange” basically means “another,” “other,” “altered” or even “next,” then the meaning is unclear, and if the the condemnation of Sodom was sexual, then it is likely that they sought to commit fornication with “other than human” angels, perhaps referring to Genesis 6 and or the book of Enochian legends. However, this would  require them to abandon the argument that Gn. 19 had nothing to do with sex, while if the “sons of God” in Gn. 6 are fallen angels, then it is about them going after the daughters of men, as it is in the Book of Enoch, not the other way around. And if we are to believe the latter apocryphal book, then we must believe in their approx. 443 foot height offspring (or 44 feet if the Egyptian text was corrupted)   

Here, it is explicitly stated that not only Sodom but Gomorrha also the cities about them in like manner “gave themselves over to fornication.” with a specific form of it being the culmination of such surrender to sensuality. The Greek (which the New Testament was written in) word from which the emphasized phrase comes from, is “ekporneuō” (G1608), and is only Biblically used here, but it is a combination of  “ek,”  denoting motion, as in “giving themselves,” and  “porneuō,” meaning fornication. Ekporneuō also occurs in the [[Septuagint]] to denote whoredom Genesis 38:24 and Exodus 34:15. Realizing this, most homosexual apologists again seek to deny homoeroticism from being the specific primarily sin of Sodom by proposing or contending that as the word for “strange” basically means “another,” “other,” “altered” or even “next,” then the meaning is unclear, and if the the condemnation of Sodom was sexual, then it is likely that they sought to commit fornication with “other than human” angels, perhaps referring to Genesis 6 and or the book of Enochian legends. However, this would  require them to abandon the argument that Gn. 19 had nothing to do with sex, while if the “sons of God” in Gn. 6 are fallen angels, then it is about them going after the daughters of men, as it is in the Book of Enoch, not men seeking men. And if we are to believe the latter apocryphal book, then we must believe in their approx. 443 foot height offspring (or 44 feet if the Egyptian text was corrupted)   

As for “other,” as in “strange flesh,” the Greek for the phrase, “strange flesh” is “heteros” and “sarx,” with the former basically meaning “other/another,” while “sarx” denotes the nature of man, or (once) a class of laws from God which deal with earthly matters as washings (Heb. 9:10).  Heteros could easily refer to other than lawful or right, as in Rm. 7:3 or Gal. 1:6, that being contrary to God's law and design, and rebellion has been the context prior to this.  Dave Miller comments, “Strange” refers to “one not of the same nature, form, class, kind” (Thayer, p. 254), and so pertains to the indulgence of passions that are “contrary to nature” (Barnes, 1949, p. 393)—“a departure from the laws of nature in the impurities practiced” (Salmond, 1950, 22:7).<ref>Dave Miller, Ph.D. http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/480</ref>  

As for “other,” as in “strange flesh,” the Greek for the phrase, “strange flesh” is “heteros” and “sarx,” with the former basically meaning “other/another,” while “sarx” denotes the nature of man, or (once) a class of laws from God which deal with earthly matters as washings (Heb. 9:10).  Heteros could easily refer to other than lawful or right, as in Rm. 7:3 or Gal. 1:6, that being contrary to God's law and design, and rebellion has been the context prior to this.  Dave Miller comments, “Strange” refers to “one not of the same nature, form, class, kind” (Thayer, p. 254), and so pertains to the indulgence of passions that are “contrary to nature” (Barnes, 1949, p. 393)—“a departure from the laws of nature in the impurities practiced” (Salmond, 1950, 22:7).<ref>Dave Miller, Ph.D. http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/480</ref>  

== Ezekiel 16:49 and inhospitality texts ==

== Ezekiel 16:49 and inhospitality texts ==

A final attempt by homosexual apologists to disallow the most particular sin of Sodom from being sexual is to assert that other summations of the iniquity of Sodom do not mention sexual sin but shows it to be inhospitality to strangers,<ref>Bailey, Homosexuality and Western Tradition, pp. 1-28; McNeil, Church and the Homosexual, pp. 42-50;  Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality, pp. 42-50</ref> for which cause they invoke Ezek 16:49: "Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy."  However, widespread promotion of sensuality and homoeroticism in particular, tends to be a product of and concomitant with, pride, abundance of food, idleness, and selfishness. And as will be shown, Sodom is associated more for sexual sins than with inhospitality or any other physical type of sin. But first we should notice that while verse 49 states overall sins, the next verse He states,  "And they [Sodomites] were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good."  The word for “abomination” here is  tô‛êbah, and (contrary to many homosexual assertions) it is not the word often used for ritual uncleanness, but is often used for sexual sin (Lv.18:22; 26-27,29,30; 20:13; Dt. 23:18; 24:4 1Ki. 14:24;  Ezek. 22:11; 33:26), including in this chapter (vs. 22, 58). And that the context in this chapter is that of fornication by Israel, and while the Hebrew is sparse in vs. 47-48, contextually the LORD was comparing Israel with Sodom (even calling it “thy sister”), and yet revealing that Israel was different, not in the sense that Sodom's physical sins were different, or those of Samaria, but that the Israelites went beyond them in scope and degree, and by idolatry violated their covenant with God and thus faced certain judgment. Thus Sodom is once again listed in connection with sexual sins.<ref>cf. Straight & Narrow?: Compassion and Clarity in the Homosexuality Debate, Thomas E. Schmidt</ref>   

A final attempt by homosexual apologists to disallow the most particular sin of Sodom from being sexual is to assert that other summations of the iniquity of Sodom do not mention sexual sin but shows it to be inhospitality to strangers,<ref>Bailey, Homosexuality and Western Tradition, pp. 1-28; McNeil, Church and the Homosexual, pp. 42-50;  Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality, pp. 92-97</ref> for which cause they invoke Ezek 16:49: "Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy."  However, widespread promotion of sensuality and homoeroticism in particular, tends to be a product of and concomitant with, pride, abundance of food, idleness, and selfishness. And as will be shown, Sodom is associated more for sexual sins than with inhospitality or any other physical type of sin. But first we should notice that while verse 49 states overall sins, the next verse He states,  "And they [Sodomites] were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good."  The word for “abomination” here is  tô‛êbah, and (contrary to many homosexual assertions) it is not the word often used for ritual uncleanness, but is often used for sexual sin (Lv.18:22; 26-27,29,30; 20:13; Dt. 23:18; 24:4 1Ki. 14:24;  Ezek. 22:11; 33:26), including in this chapter (vs. 22, 58). And that the context in this chapter is that of fornication by Israel, and while the Hebrew is sparse in vs. 47-48, contextually the LORD was comparing Israel with Sodom (even calling it “thy sister”), and yet revealing that Israel was different, not in the sense that Sodom's physical sins were different, or those of Samaria, but that the Israelites went beyond them in scope and degree, and by idolatry violated their covenant with God and thus faced certain judgment. Thus Sodom is once again listed in connection with sexual sins.<ref>cf. Straight & Narrow?: Compassion and Clarity in the Homosexuality Debate, Thomas E. Schmidt</ref>   

Sins to which Sodom is linked to elsewhere include,  

Sins to which Sodom is linked to elsewhere include,